Defining "You"

In the old world, you were defined by what you consumed*.  In the new world, you are defined by what you create.

*- your credit report, your vehicle, etc.

Comments

[Nicki Crane]

Interesting comment on "Defining You." The surge in entreprenuership definitely supports this concept.

[Mark Dykeman]

Actually, I think we are defined both by what we consume and what we create. I also think the weight attached to these two criteria varies based on our occupation or life situation.

However, I certainly believe that our creative activity has an increasing role in how we will be judged.

[PepperDigital]

In the new world, you could also be defined by what you destroy.

[Jeremy]

I think it depends who's doing the defining. To most businesses, you are still what you consume. Some more progressive ones take a look at what you create and a deeper look at your demo, ethno, and psychographic information, but most don't. If you're talking about how people you socialize with define you, then yes I'd agree it's more about what you create.

[Glenn]

That's a grand statement. Prove it, please.

Regards,

Glenn

[christopher carfi]

glenn, some back story here: http://www.socialcustomer.com/2006/05/i_like_words_i_.html

can that statement be "proven" mathematically? certainly not. can it be shown to be true? certainly.

if i were interested in the definition of "glenn ross," the starting point for my definition would be driven very much by the words here: http://www.allbusiness.com/sales/customer-service/10783-1.html

over time, that definition would be augmented and grown by what "glenn ross" does/creates during our interactions. those things that are created during the interactions define the relationship, don't they?

[Glenn]

Ahh, context. That's what I was missing. Alright, I'll go with you in defining "creative." But, it's your statement as a whole that seems oversimplified.

The statement as written, lacked context. Could be my fault, I'm a new fan here. The word that came to my mind was "binary." Once people were one way, then someone flipped a switch and they acted another way. Where's the evolution, the "in between."

I'm a big fan of simplicity. In fact, I was reviewing the book, The Laws of Simplicity this morning. But, to me, your statement needed more context.

I'll be reading...

Glenn